I suspect they have their share of people who have spent more time in the arctic. I suspect they are listening to them. When the risk/reward ratio is right, they will act. They are paid to evaluate the risk. They have skin in the game. I would defer to their judgement rather than cautionary tales slung around the internet.
The best science says the ice is headed down. Russia has decades of experience on running a northern route. On balance if I have to rely on somebodies opinion about the feasibility of the enterprise.. I’d side with
with folks with more experience who put their money in the pot. Anybody can kibitz.
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Steven Mosher
Who said anything about profound wisdom.
I am saying something quite different. If I have to lay my money on the matter, I will listen to the people who have a stake in getting the answer right.
Goddard has no stake. If he is wrong, he loses nothing. he can say whatever he likes. he is not held to account. Similarly, a climate modeller, can report whatever he likes. he is also not held to account.
The businessmen who put their money into the pot will be held to account. They will win or lose. When people have money at stake I would expect them to take due diligence. this does not insure success. they can lose.
However, they have more at stake than blog fight, blog reputation or scientific reputation. They have cash at stake. They bet their jobs and their lives in some case. If I am forced to side with someone, if I cannot study the problem in detail and have to accept the opinions of others, i am going to listen to guys with skin in the game. Not internet tools, or guys in the ivory tower.
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by R. Gates
Max,
We probably mainly disagree as to the cause of the long-term trend, but not the general direction. You, it seems, would minimize or negate any anthropogenic contribution, while I would see it as increasingly a factor, especially since around 1960.
You seem likely to win your bet BTW, but not so sure what the basis was nor when you made it. Which temperature record exactly did you bet on and when did you make that bet? By some accounts, 2010 is the warmest year on record globally, but of course skeptics and others love 1998 from the big El Nino warming. Either way, both 2010 and 1998 will be shattered in upcoming years, it seems we both agree on that, regardless of cause.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Chief Hydrologist
Both ice and temperature seem to have the familiar multi-decadal signature.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=chylek09.gif
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Steven Mosher
Unfortunately the winter recovery is smaller and smaller as years go by.
Unfortunately the business opportunity has to do with the collapse in the summer which you ignore. you ingore it because you are an unimaginative dolt. Those with foresight see the opportunity. They dont listen to your distractions because they won’t make money by listening to fools who don’t know what they are talking about.
This is why no company that is planning to make money in the arctic has a skeptic on board. The smart capitalist understands the science. that science points to an opportunity. They will make money while you have your thumb up your butt.
↧
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Cees de Valk
There is a risk that instead of continued melting, natural oscillations will make ice grow again once an extensive infrastructure is in place for extracting, storing and transporting hydrocarbons. Hopefully the fracking boom will slow down investments up North allowing us to get a clearer picture of what is actually happening there and how it will develop. A reason to be extra careful is that safety in the arctic depends much more on day-to-day judgement and decisions than elsewhere.
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by BBD
<blockquote>They are <b>not convinced</b> that the IPCC’s CAGW premise is supported by empirical scientific evidence, so they have concluded that it is based on an invalid or at best uncorroborated hypothesis.</blockquote>
Argument from incredulity doesn't challenge the scientific consensus. To do that requires a widely-supported scientifc case and you do not have one. Whatever you may claim.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by manacker
The “clowns that run (or ran) BP” have made their share of expensive errors.
So have the guys that granted them the permit for the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf.
Wiki tells us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
According to the US Congressional investigation, the rig’s blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the base of the well, built by Cameron International Corporation, had a hydraulic leak and a failed battery, and therefore failed.[420] On 19 August, Admiral Thad Allen ordered BP to keep the blowout preventer to be used as evidence in any court actions.[421] On 25 August, Harry Thierens, BP’s vice president for drilling and completions, told the hearing that he found that the blowout preventer was connected to a test pipe, rather than the one conveying oil to the surface. He said that he was “frankly astonished that this could have happened.”
This is not quite right, according to the info I have heard. There was a “blowout preventer”, but this was not a “fail-safe device”. A “fail-safe device” is so designed that it fails in the safe position, preventing a blowout, without the need of a “battery”, which can fail. These devices exist, but are quite expensive (upward of $500,000 added cost), so BP management decided not to spend the extra money (against the advice of Transocean). They were granted the exploration permit despite this, although they should have had such a device when drilling at these depths. So the monumental screw-up was caused by both BP and the permit authorities.
And it will now cost BP (and their insurance) at least $5 billion in punitive damages, legal costs, etc., not even counting “loss of goodwill” (the “green” BP logo looks a bit tarnished).
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by R. Gates
willb asks”
“So, R. Gates, if the sun were to disappear, what does your fevered imagination tell you would happen to Earth’s surface temperature? To what temperature do you think it would settle?”
____
The oceans would freeze over pretty rapidly if the sun just disappeared. We would get maybe 20 meter or more thick ice right to the poles. All surface life would die, yet some life in the oceans and deep in mines and caves would live from the geothermal heat of the Earth. The ice on the surface of the oceans would act to insulate the oceans and thus, the geothermal heat from the Earth would become extremely important as it would be the only source of heat on the planet. There is a good chance that there is moon much like this already in our solar system…possible Titan or Europa? A final important factor related to a sun-less Earth, would be whether or not Earth would keep its own moon as tidal fluxing from it would add a bit more energy to the Earth system.
As far as surface temperatures on such a planet (given that the atmosphere would all but disappear), you would see temperatures hover very close to what we see on the outer planets of the solar system…right around -180C or so. You’d be much better off not being on the surface, but living deep in a mine, cave, or under the ice cap in the ocean.
↧
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by pokerguy
You’re not understanding that these companies would be taking an unacceptable risk by not investing here, not because they’re even close to being sure how this will work out, but because the potential payoff is enormous. Go ahead and bet your shirt because you think you’re following the “smart money,” but your reasoning remains wrong.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Bob
Steve Mosher, you brilliant but arrogant old fool. First, I doubt you seriously know who these companies consult with. Second, you suggest Martin has his thumb up his butt. Replay your talk the other night on WUWT TV and then tells us whose thumb is where. Remember, Lukewarmer san, you’re in the middle – which means you really know very little despite your protestations.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by John Carpenter
They could take a look at the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegan tribes here in CT for examples of tribes that ‘came into wealth’.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by J Martin
Seems I hit a raw nerve there. Mosher calls me a ‘dolt’ and Gates calls me a ‘denialist’
Guys no one is going to exploit Arctic resources during this interstitial, perhaps they will during the next one.
Fracking what we already have beneath our feet is so very much cheaper than doing battle with conditions in the Arctic that it simply won’t happen. A second reason it won’t happen is that territorial claims are not going to be resolved any time soon. A third reason it won’t happen is that the greens will go doo-lally if anyone looks like they are going to take a drilling rig up there.
So the whole discussion of Arctic resources is moot.
Have a good evening.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by manacker
BBD
Wrong.
What it requires is “argument from evidence”.
And that is precisely what is missing.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Steven Mosher
david.
The radiative physics used in satillite products is the same radiative physics that tells us that doubling c02 results in 3-4 additional watts of forcing.
Check out the difference between TSI in the little ice age and today.
mousenuts.
The question is how much warming will 3.7Watts produce.
With no feedbacks you can figure that out. around 1.2C
So, now comes the next question. Will feedbacks decrease this or increase it?
If you practice skepticism and say its too hard to figure out, you are left with 1.2C +- you dont know.
if you practice science, you’ll see that the vast majority of evidence suggests positive feedback.
1. the paleo record. All deep time studies suggest a sensitivity that increases the warming over the 1.2C estimate. Central value is about 3C
2. The observation record. All long term studies comport with the paleo record.
3. Modelling. its not strictly speaking evidence. However, you cannot hindcast with models that only suppose 1.2C of warming.
There are a few studies, using short term records, that suggest a Transient Climate Sensitivity that is low. But we are not talking about that
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Steven Mosher
Well captian, then you better get busy correcting all the skeptics who are sure that.
1. c02 cant cause additional forcing
2. that 3.7watts of c02 forcing is somehow unimportant when the secular
changes in TSI are less than that.
3. The climate is too complex to understand, but we know that the feedbacks are negative. That’s a real hoot.
My favorite was one skeptic who used the humidity products to prove that radiative physics was wrong.
Of course, now is the time to chime in and say.. ‘we never denied radiative physics’. Thats true in some cases. But you let idiots blather on without correcting them. When warmists do this WRT the HS, we call this ‘silence of the lambs’ That is when you know something is wrong, but you are too much of a pussy to point it out. fake skeptic pussies.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Greg Goodman
“We will have an ice free summer in not more than a few decades, of this I am very confident. ”
You may be right, there is an underlying century scale warming. At the peak of the next cycle that may be more realistic.
See you in 60 years.
In the mean time the world will have pressing worries I suspect. Take a look around.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Steven Mosher
lolwot,
to be fair we did persue the code. we were turned down because of ITAR.
basically, on board code is classified as a weapon.
Still your basic point remains valid.
Skeptics practice selective skepticism not methodological skepticism.
fake skeptics.
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by A fan of *MORE* discourse
It’s best to check original sources, eh Willis?
`Cuz reasoned, verifiable discourse sure beats bathroom-language abuse!
![\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit}\,\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Crule%5B-0.5ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5Crule%5B2.0ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Cddot%5Csmile%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit+%5C%2C%5Cddot%5Csmile%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit+%5C%2C%5Cddot%5Csmile%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%7D%5C%2C%5Crule%5B-0.5ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5Crule%5B2.0ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffcc&fg=ff0066&s=4 "\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit \,\ddot\smile\,\heartsuit}\,\rule[-0.5ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\rule[2.0ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Arno Arrak
While my email was knocked out by hurricane Sandy, an interesting discussion appeared as part of “Melting of the Arctic sea ice” exchange on Climate Dialogue:
***************************************************************************
Judith Curry November 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
I’ll kick off the discussion, focusing on the following question:
…What percentage of the recent [sea ice] decline would you attribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gases?… My assessment is that it is likely (>66% likelihood) that there is 50-50 split between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing, with +/-20% range…”
**************************************************************************
May I suggest that the true answer is 0% anthropogenic greenhouse gases? You of all people should know it, having had access to my Arctic work for several years now. Instead I see you citing opinions of people like Walt Meyer and Ron Lindsay who haven’t the vaguest notion of what is going on in the Arctic. They and others in this discussion remind me of blind men trying to learn about the elephant: they may have contact with some part of the beast but they sure don’t know what to make of it. Briefly, Arctic warming started at the turn of the twentieth century after two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. No cycles, no nothing until it got going according to both Kaufman and Spielhagen. Theirs were two independent measurements, Kaufman’s from sub-Arctic lake deposits, Spielhagen’s from Foraminiferal cores near Svalbard. Kaufman shows that after the warming got started it paused for a while in mid-twentieth century and then resumed. The scale of his graph was highly compressed but I was able to get a more high resolution graph for the twentieth century and above from NOAA’s Arctic Report Card for 2010. This NOAA chart showed that the mid-century pause in warming was not just a pause but an actual cooling that lasted from 1940 to 1970. This corresponds well to numerous observations that show warming in the twenties and thirties that was interrupted but then started up again in the latter part of the century. This dual warming regime in the twentieth century was also well known to Polyakoff et al. when they published Arctic warming data for the years 1875 to 2000. Among the observations reported are reports of warming in the early part of the century and direct measurements of Arctic water temperature by Spielhagen in 2010 who reported temperatures that never had been reached in the previous two thousand years. He makes it very clear that this is not part of any cycle but a completely unique occurrence without any precedent. This is all observational, but what about its cause? Some of your participants (e.g. Lindsey) think the warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Unfortunately these people have no idea of the physics of the greenhouse effect. In order to start greenhouse warming by carbon dioxide it is quite necessary that there must be a parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. That is because the absorptance of carbon dioxide in the infrared is a property of the gas and cannot be changed. If you want it to start a warming you must put more carbon dioxide in the air and we know that this did not happen. What else could be the cause? Carbon dioxide and the sun can both be ruled out, so what is left? The only process I could think of was a re-arrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that started carrying warm water of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean. The mid-century suspension of warming could then be explained as a temporary resumption of the previous flow pattern of currents. Such abrupt changes are impossible for the greenhouse effect to perform but they are easy to understand if shifting currents are involved. I went to press with that and subsequent reports have only strengthened this view, including a reference to “North Atlantic currents” entering Barents Sea in the early century. You can be assured that the above processes accurately describe the Arctic warming today. To make that point even more strongly, Arctic today is actually the only part of the earth that is still warming. According to the Met Office, there has not been any global warming for the last 16 years. I count it as twelve because satellite view tells me that. David Rose unearthed the temperature standstill from their web site and published it in the Daily Mail on a Sunday in October. The Met Office rushed out a damage control comment on the same day the article came out but had to admit Rose was right. Look up my comments for that. This particular temperature standstill is not the only one on record. Satellite temperature data indicate that there was no warming from 1979 to 1997, just ENSO oscillations, while global mean temperature stood still. The only actual warming since the satellites started operating is a step warming that began with the 1998 super El Nino, raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years, and then stopped. There has not been any warming since then as Met Office temperature record proves. There was another long temperature standstill before that – no warming at all from about 1950 to 1976. What brought that one to an end was also a step warming which raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees and was over by 1980. It was then called the Great Pacific Climate Shift but since that time it has been subsumed into the PDO phase shift from cool to warm phase that supposedly has a thirty year period. For more information, get my book “What Warming?” from Amazon. Also read my article in E&E 22(8):269-283 (2010).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
